Romney won the debate - but

This Paulite thinks Romney won the debate. The thing is, he should have. Obama is so weak on economic and monetary issues that anyone could. I still won't vote for Romney because I don't trust his record and rhetoric but he did objectively win this debate. If he didn't then he would be the worst candidate ever.

Well he would have been the second worst “if he had lost” the worst bowed out a while back let’s hope for the last time too. After a while even RP has to come to the conclusion that he just is never going to win but please enjoy your sour grapes drink.

Romney won the debate, but you still want Paul. The devotion is noted, but simply irrelevant.

There were two guys on the stage last night, and only one of THEM will be the president in 4 months. That may suck for all of us, but that's reality. Keep working through those stages of grief, you'll get there. If you get stuck, some counseling may help.

How dare a non-libertarian Republican display working knowledge of macroeconomics, inherent supremacy of revenues and decreased spending over higher taxes, inherent supremacy of the free market over the federal government, and inherent efficiency of states over the federal government.

What Romney proved last night is that he is the big government "moderate" Rockefeller RINO we all knew he was in the primaries which was why we all supported more conservative candidates. Last night we learned that his tax "cuts" are smoke and mirrors (no net reduction due to elimination of deductions), that he WILL borrow from the Chinese if he can spend it on the military, that he won't touch entitlement spending and therefore really won't reduce net spending at all, that he still wants federal control of healthcare (just called RomneyCare instead of ObamaCare), and that he really, really doesn't like renewable energy.

Here's what will happen if Romney gets elected: very little will change which means the economy doesn't do much and "conservative" policies get blamed for not working (again).

What Romney proved last night is that he is the big government "moderate" Rockefeller RINO we all knew he was in the primaries which was why we all supported more conservative candidates.

OK, so let's go through your bullets.

Quote:

Last night we learned that his tax "cuts" are smoke and mirrors (no net reduction due to elimination of deductions),

First, Romney has been touting a revenue-neutral restructuring of the tax code since the primaries, so saying you just learned it last night seems odd to me.

That said, lowering rates and eliminating deductions makes perfect sense since it puts incentive back where it belongs...to work harder and earn more to put in your pocket...instead of where it is now, which is to spend your extra earnings on government-approved things in order to gain a deduction.

Taken to its extreme, would you prefer a high tax rate with a bunch of deductions written into a labrynthine code, or a low flat tax rate with no deductions at all?

Quote:

that he WILL borrow from the Chinese if he can spend it on the military, that he won't touch entitlement spending and therefore really won't reduce net spending at all,

I combined these two because I think you have too. The acid test Romney used was if a program isn't worth borrowing from the Chinese to fund, it would be eliminated. PBS seems pretty clear under that formula. Obamacare definitely. Free cell phones? Yep.

But the big drivers are SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. On its current trajectory it's going to go BK. The question is actually how do we get these things working until we can actually cut them off?

Quote:

that he still wants federal control of healthcare (just called RomneyCare instead of ObamaCare),

I just heard him flat out say he will a) repeal Obamacare and b) devolve the issue back to the states where it belongs (he even brought up the 10A. ).

Quote:

and that he really, really doesn't like renewable energy.

It isn't that he doesn't like it, just that he apparently doesn't believe the Federal Government has a role in pouring venture capital down that hole. I don't think that's an unreasonable opinion.

Quote:

Here's what will happen if Romney gets elected: very little will change which means the economy doesn't do much and "conservative" policies get blamed for not working (again).

The federal behemoth has had many many many years to get momentum. To expect it to get cut down to nothing in the space of a presidential term is unrealistic.

To me, the main issue revolves around what to do with SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. It's not politically feasible to just cut it all to nothing. That's the sad fact. So the conversation is how can we shore up these programs until the Overton Window shifts and then get rid of them? To me the answer is to grow our way out of this current hole we've been in for four years now (Romney's tax structure changes is a reasonable component to that), and begin to hammer home the idea that these programs are inherently unsustainable...we can shore it up here and there but the end game has to be to terminate them.

Because Romney is right...there is a sizeable bloc of people out there who think government exists to give them stuff. Once in office he's got to figure out a way to get them on a path to empowerment, probably against their wills, and make them see that a life of self-sufficiency is much better than a life of dependency. And again, this is a long term project but it's something we really need to get started on now.

Edited in italics above to finish a phrase...sorry about that.

__________________The US Air Force has started including tax protester literature in the emergency supplies of their aircraft. If the plane crashes in a remote area, the crew is instructed to read the pamphlets and Goalie will be along shortly to rebut them.

First, Romney has been touting a revenue-neutral restructuring of the tax code since the primaries, so saying you just learned it last night seems odd to me.

That said, lowering rates and eliminating deductions makes perfect sense since it puts incentive back where it belongs...to work harder and earn more to put in your pocket...instead of where it is now, which is to spend your extra earnings on government-approved things in order to gain a deduction.

Taken to its extreme, would you prefer a high tax rate with a bunch of deductions written into a labrynthine code, or a low flat tax rate with no deductions at all?

I combined these two because I think you have too. The acid test Romney used was if a program isn't worth borrowing from the Chinese to fund, it would be eliminated. PBS seems pretty clear under that formula. Obamacare definitely. Free cell phones? Yep.

But the big drivers are SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. On its current trajectory it's going to go BK. The question is actually how do we get these things working until we can actually cut them off?

I just heard him flat out say he will a) repeal Obamacare and b) devolve the issue back to the states where it belongs (he even brought up the 10A. ).

It isn't that he doesn't like it, just that he apparently doesn't believe the Federal Government has a role in pouring venture capital down that hole. I don't think that's an unreasonable opinion.

The federal behemoth has had many many many years to get momentum. To expect it to get cut down to nothing in the space of a presidential term is unrealistic.

To me, the main issue revolves around what to do with SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. It's not politically feasible to just cut it all to nothing. That's the sad fact. So the conversation is how can we shore up these programs until the Overton Window shifts and then get rid of them? To me the answer is to grow our way out of this current hole we've been in for four years now (Romney's tax structure changes is a reasonable component to that), begin to hammer home the idea that

Because Romney is right...there is a sizeable bloc of people out there who think government exists to give them stuff. Once in office he's got to figure out a way to get them on a path to empowerment, probably against their wills, and make them see that a life of self-sufficiency is much better than a life of dependency. And again, this is a long term project but it's something we really need to get started on now.

The only solution to our economic mess is dramatic reductions in spending with equally dramatic reductions in taxes. Why? Government spending is stimulative, it just isn't very efficient. When you reduce it, you need to replace with a more efficient stimulus, which is putting the money back into the hands of private enterprise where it will be spent to grow businesses. Has this ever been done? Yes. Study the depression of 1920 in the wake of the progressive Wilson and the measures instituted by Coolidge that resulted in the Roaring 20's.

Romney is only slightly closer to this than Obama. His prescriptions are weak and really won't solve the country's problems. Many here think he can be a placeholder until something more conservative comes along but what will happen is, when he fails, the pendulum will swing harder to the left and there will be no chance for a true conservative reformer.

My guess is he was busy out there in the real world, taking his message to The People, and campaigning for votes. He was probably the featured speaker at the Grand Opening of a new medical marijuana shop in some run-down strip mall.

The only solution to our economic mess is dramatic reductions in spending with equally dramatic reductions in taxes. Why? Government spending is stimulative, it just isn't very efficient. When you reduce it, you need to replace with a more efficient stimulus, which is putting the money back into the hands of private enterprise where it will be spent to grow businesses. Has this ever been done? Yes. Study the depression of 1920 in the wake of the progressive Wilson and the measures instituted by Coolidge that resulted in the Roaring 20's.

Romney is only slightly closer to this than Obama. His prescriptions are weak and really won't solve the country's problems. Many here think he can be a placeholder until something more conservative comes along but what will happen is, when he fails, the pendulum will swing harder to the left and there will be no chance for a true conservative reformer.

But back in 2008 the argument was that four years of Obama would allow the pendulum to swing very hard to the right and a "true conservative" would emerge.

I agree that government spending must decrease, and decrease a lot. The problem however is twofold. This isn't like a SimCity game where you can just push a button and things happen. There are political realities, and as Romney said, 47% of the electorate honestly believe government is there to provide bennies to people. Frankly, four straight years of chronic under/unemployment will do that to people.

So I disagree. The first step is to get the jobs picture fixed, and that necessarily means structural changes to the tax code to incentivize investment and hard work. The second is to put SS/Medicare/Medicaid on a terminal path, but that's not going to happen as long as there are millions of baby boomers out there demanding their stuff (Hell, read posts from Trew2Life for a disturbing view into this mentality). So the unfortunate reality is to try and make the programs solvent in the short term while setting the stage for their eventual demise. Is Romney going to do the latter in one or even two terms? I don't think he *can*, but to me it's fantasy to suggest that anyone else can either.

So the here-and-now reality is we can only do short-term monkeying around with discretionary spending, which seems reasonable to me. I don't think we should be pouring $90 billion into alternative energy, not when Canada is right north of us willing to sell us oil. But what we also *can* do is work to shift the Overton Window and make self-sufficiency more palatable to that 47%. Trouble is, it's a hard sell if a significant portion of that 47% don't have jobs.....

__________________The US Air Force has started including tax protester literature in the emergency supplies of their aircraft. If the plane crashes in a remote area, the crew is instructed to read the pamphlets and Goalie will be along shortly to rebut them.

This was not just winning the debate. It was winning the major issue of the election. How the hell Obama decides to half-ass a debate on the economy....well, actually, it explains why the economy is in such horrible shape.

Think for a minute. Gary Johnson could easily give an education lecture on Obama and Romney with the economy, Gov't going beyond the Constitution's scope, total failure of social policy, and the mess of current forgiven policy.

Everyone knows that Gary is right on those points but we don't want to sacrifice our unlimited pleasure of printing money, broken promises of pension, and policing the world. With that perspective and I don't think we could reverse the current path to the destruction of the America as we know.

This was not just winning the debate. It was winning the major issue of the election. How the hell Obama decides to half-ass a debate on the economy....well, actually, it explains why the economy is in such horrible shape.

... inherent supremacy of revenues and decreased spending over higher taxes, inherent supremacy of the free market over the federal government, and inherent efficiency of states over the federal government.

The most interesting thing about your post is that it illustrates a common ideological theme of the right, which is using the "over the" comparisons as if the concepts compared are mutually exclusive. It is REALLY appealing and effective to "low information" voters. Unfortunately it is nonsense and a patronizing argument that appeals to emotions more than reality.

What Romney proved last night is that he is the big government "moderate" Rockefeller RINO we all knew he was in the primaries which was why we all supported more conservative candidates. Last night we learned that his tax "cuts" are smoke and mirrors (no net reduction due to elimination of deductions), that he WILL borrow from the Chinese if he can spend it on the military, that he won't touch entitlement spending and therefore really won't reduce net spending at all, that he still wants federal control of healthcare (just called RomneyCare instead of ObamaCare), and that he really, really doesn't like renewable energy.

Here's what will happen if Romney gets elected: very little will change which means the economy doesn't do much and "conservative" policies get blamed for not working (again).

Good post! Another way of saying it ... IMO ... is that Romney simply has continued his strategy of saying whatever it takes to appeal the audience at hand. Regardless of whether it conflicts 100% with what he said yesterday or 6 months ago or a year. He has absolutely no shame (not that many politicians do ... but he takes it to a whole new level). The man really has no character or shame to be able to say/claim with a straight face something 100% asymmetric with what he effectively said yesterday.

In summary Romney "won" the debate as he has no character. The sad thing is ... the vast vast majority think he "won" also ... But don't realize WHY they think that.